Music Industry Finds New Ways to Shoot Self in Foot
I like a band called Metric that, while quite popular in Canada, isn’t so well-known in the United States. And since they’re a pretty “political” band, I think they’re a group a lot of readers of this blog might be interested in. Thus, I’m going to embed on the blog this music video of their song “Succexxy” that was released back in 2004 and that I think does a great job of capturing the insane spirit of the Summer of the War back in 2002:
By embedding the video, I’m exposing the band to a wider audience. Maybe some of you will like the song and the video. And maybe some of those people will buy a Metric album. Win-win!
But it seems that’s not how Warner Music Group sees things:
Warner Music said it would pull hundreds of thousands of videos from the site following the collapse of talks with the Google-owned company about renegotiating a content-sharing deal. “We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,” the group said. Warner Music added that it was “working actively” to find a resolution with YouTube.
As Ta-Nehisi Coates says:
A music video is nothing more than a really expensive ad. It’s amazing that these guys want YouTube to pay them for the right to show their videos. They should be trying to leverage the viewers into buyers. These guys are straight out 1963. They deserve whatever’s coming to them in this economy.
Of course Metric’s not a Warner group, so I’m still free to help them promote their work without paying them a fee for my trouble.
77 Responses to “Music Industry Finds New Ways to Shoot Self in Foot”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
now write something about basketball and everything will be back to normal.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Yeah, saw these guys live about a year ago. Wow, what a show. Any news on a new album?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
In the past if there was an album I wanted to hear but wasn’t sure if I wanted to buy it without hearing, I would illegally download it. But there are various problems with viruses and downloading crappy versions. I’ve since found that most songs are on youtube, either with or without an official video, so if I want to hear an album prior to buying I listen to it on youtube without any virus danger. I suppose in some industry suit’s paranoid mind this is equivalent to illegal downloading in that I am hearing the songs without buying them.
Of course, before youtube and illegal downloading, people were able to listen to songs without buying them, on various dastardly technologies like radio or tape recordings. (Sometimes tape recordings of the radio!)
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Yay back to normal. At least this incident reminded us that we have to be very suspicious of CAP and ThinkProgress now that Democrats control every level of power.
But for the record, Matt’s post bashing Third Way this morning was hilarious, in a bureaucratic way.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The music industry is also ignoring the fact that if we don’t watch such videos on YouTube … well, where the hell are we going to watch them? MTV/VH1 and their various sub-channels have about a combined twenty hours of music videos shown a week, with lots of repetition and a hell of a lot of commercials.
I’m also amazed that so many right’s-holders insist that older commercials be taken down. What, exactly, is the point of that? They can’t sell the damn things so they aren’t losing money, and they aren’t still on TV … it’s like a little kid with a toy he doesn’t want to play with, but refuses to share. Multiplied times a few million toys.
(The commercial I’m specifically thinking of was that claymation Levi’s commercial with “Bombastic” playing in the background – the best quality copy I found on YouTube was taken down after a few weeks due to “copyright violations.”)
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
And I am sure the logic used by Lord Yglesias would apply to a Warner group such as AC/DC… I am sure no one has ever heard of that group, and the only way it will get exposure is through YouTube or sell-out blog references.
Say there is a casual fan out there who really has a hankering for one of AC/DC’s songs. They could go to the record store and buy a CD. OR they could go on YouTube or illegally download the song and listen to it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Well, for my part, I found out about and become a fan of Metric through illegal/non-paying means (Limewire and Youtube), culminating in tonight, when I pay them 35 bucks (and Ticketmaster 15 – bastards) to see them live. I have heard them twice on the radio ever, but really discovered them through blog chatter and youtube. They wouldn’t have my money and adoration if it weren’t for youtube and downloading.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I think there is “something” to Warner’s argument. A lot of those youtube videos aren’t actually the band’s produced video, but just a given song with a couple of pictures scrolling by. I was at a party once where people just kept playing the youtube versions of songs instead of, you know, songs they had paid for or at least gone to the trouble to pirate. That’s a legit problem. The party wasn’t too hot, either.
It’s also ironic you chose Metric. As a Canadian band they receive cash money straight from their government.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Wow – I like that so much I just went out and downloaded a bit torrent copy…
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
…ok, just kidding. I’m Canadian, so naturally I’ve always loved Metric. I downloaded them *years* ago…
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Coates is right. I’ve recently picked up some concert dvds from bands who were around in the early 80s, pre-MTV, and the the header on the menu that contains their videos is called “Promos”. It may be because they’re British, but this gets to the issue that before there was a platform to screen videos as entertainment, these things existed to sell records. they weren’t the product, they promoted the product.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“so I’m still free to help them promote their work without paying them a fee for my trouble.”
Now let’s just think about that. In the old days of radio (yes, I am that old), the record companies would pay radio stations to play certain songs. They did so to promote the artist. It was called “payola.” So why doesn’t that work anymore? If you want someone to buy your song, it seems you would want them to hear it first. Unless the song sucks, of course. But if that’s the case, why’d you record it in the first place? Probably the best commentary on payola was Neil Young’s “Payola Blues.” It’s bitter, but he had his reasons for that. Some might argue that the new technology has somehow changed things, but the record companies have been making that argument since the days of wax cylinders. Here’s a brief list of things that were supposed to kill the music industry: wax cylinders, radio, vinyl records, LPs, television, 8-tracks, cassette tapes, CDs, and the internet. You know what? People still buy music. And I still buy LPs, when I can, at least.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
i would point out that “music video” is undoubtedly short for “promotional music video”. once you’ve got a medium to turn your ads into entertainment, you lop the first word off and voila, you’re expense becomes a product with value. Innovation!
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Or they could– and this is crazy, I know– just wait until the urge passes. Wild, but it does happen! (They could also download it for a nominal fee from iTunes, if iTunes has a relationship with their production company, but I’m too lazy to check.)
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that bands and labels got lazy in their promotion dept. Put up a crappy myspace site and boom, done. Sorry, that’s not a good was to market your band. But hey, there’s your free samples so no complaining.
In all seriousness, if bands could get something like a cross between myspace and youtube, it would really help them get their material to consumers. Right now I think the system isn’t working optimally.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Just to second Ben, my littler brother, 14, doesn’t buy music. “Why?” he says, “I’ll just listen to it on youtube.” While I agree, the music industry has consistently shot itself in the foot, it’s important to note that there are some people who don’t buy music because it’s on youtube.
Overall, though, I think putting more music on youtube is a win. Check out Lil’ Wayne’s promotional style–giving away millions of dollars worth of music and selling a million records in a week. Not everyone can be that prolific, but perhaps that’s the way to make money in the music industry nowadays.
BTW, Amazon mp3 FTW.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“they weren’t the product, they promoted the product.”
The same transformation is happening with movie trailers. No way in hell am I watching an online ad before I watch a movie trailer.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Matthew Yglesias is supported by subsidies from a non-profit politically oriented foundation. Ta-Nehisi Coates is a loss leader for a glossy magazine which is gradually following those losses straight into the ground. Neither Yglesias nor Coates is in a position to say anything about what constitutes a sustainable revenue model in the internet-age media.
Warner is not so 1963: Yglesias and Coates are so 1996. The free internet as loss leader for album or concert revenues is a god that failed. The album and concert revenues are not there. They did not arrive. It is time for artists to start demanding to be paid for their work. That is in every artist’s class interest. Compulsory licensing is not a “dinosaur concept” any more than the Geneva Conventions are “quaint”. If we adopted the model of the “free” medium of radio circa 1972, artists would get paid 5 cents every time their videos got played on YouTube. And that would instantly solve the music industry’s entire problem and put an end to all these tedious and stupid debates. Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of paying 5 cents when you watch a YouTube video? Okay, how about 2 cents? That’d probably do the trick too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Due to the omission of an editorial note to the contrary, I must assume that the Center for American Progress is making its feelings known about the music industry. But will RIAA members, major political contributors all, take this lying down?
Is this shot across the bow the first sign of the coming political battle over digital media online???
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Confusingly, the band had to change its name to “Imperial” in the US market.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
It seems to me it should be up to the holder of the Copyright to make the decision as to whether or not they wish to expose their content to a broader audience.
It’s odd that someone who is paid for writing wouldn’t understand that concept.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
No one in history except for the short period where phonograph records were the only reproducible media has ever purchased MUSIC.
They’ve purchased ACCESS to music.
Whether it was going to a bar to listen and paying for drinks, or paying for an iTunes download, it’s ACCESS they’re paying for.
And the reason iTunes got so huge is because it WORKED. It was reasonably efficient and reasonably cheap compared to the nightmare that most P2P systems are. On the average P2P system, you spend hours trying to set it up, then more hours trying to find what you want amongst all the porn garbage, then you get in a queue to download it (assuming you found it in the first place), then you wait hours for it to download. Then you find out the quality sucks or it’s actually a virus.
Or you can pay Apple a buck and get it NOW.
As the Grateful Dead used to say, “The music’s free, the concert costs.”
No one has ever paid for music – and they never will.
Meanwhile, here is my promotion for the Corrs (who by the way hate music downloading, which is one reason they’re no longer that big):
The Corrs – Breathless – Live in Trafalgar Square
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuI1BdUayJE&feature=related
The Corrs – Joy of Life/Trout In the bath – Live at Lansdowne Road
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpEctXsTDQg
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“it’s important to note that there are some people who don’t buy music because it’s on youtube”
When I was in college, a lot of people didn’t buy music because they recorded it on cassette off the radio. Then, they started burning CDs. Then, they were downloading MP3s. There will always be people who don’t buy music. And there will always be people who do. I’m one of those that do, but I’m not buying anything I haven’t heard. So free sources like radio and YouTube are needed to make that sale. If the music industry wants me to buy something I haven’t heard yet, good luck to them. It just ain’t happening.
As a side note, consider the Grateful Dead. They allowed people to record their shows. They still sold records and toured more than anyone. And those tapes actually encouraged people to see the shows. And those shows always sold out. And they rarely had a top ten hit. It was a business model that worked. The only really bad business decision they made was to start their own record company. Most bands don’t make much money, but the smart ones do. Being really talented and famous isn’t enough. Charlie Parker proved that. He rarely had the money required to show up for a gig with his own saxophone. But Steve Miller could make shit loads of money with much less talent. He made the game work for him. And if you think the problem might be having a massive heroin habit, I’ve got two words: Jerry Garcia.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Artists don’t demand to be paid for their work, entertainers do – not that artists wouldn mind being paid for their work, to be sure. Art is what you do for yourself. Trying to make a living at it is a whole different business
And keep in mind this particular item has nothing to do with artists – it has to do with their “partners” the entertainment conglomerates who are as usual at least a generation behind in figuring out how to make current technoligies work for either themselves, the artists or their customers.
True. No one here is disputing that. By the same token, it’s an interesting discussion as to whether the decisions the rights holders have made over the last 10 years or so have been particularly wise.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
The Coates link goes to the Guardian article.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
That was, by all measures, very funny!
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
But if you’re just listening to it on YouTube, you don’t get the container that converts into handy tray for sorting the seeds and stems out of your weed. Kids these days…
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Having a massive heroin problem was an excellent business plan for Jerry Garcia for a very long time. Then, suddenly, not so much.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
a) Matt has pretty good taste in music. While I don’t like the basketball posts, I encourage more music posts.
b) I agree, music video posts on Youtube are an excellent way to discover new music, and so WB will be putting it’s artists at a disadvantage by removing the videos. That said, the videos are still WB property. They may have considered this promotional effect, then still decided the right price for allowing Youtube to host the videos is something other than zero.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
How about the Sontag-penned “We Need a War”, performed by Fisherspooner on their Odyssey album (2005)?
http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Fischerspooner/dp/B0007VZ97G
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
But if you’re just listening to it on YouTube, you don’t get the container that converts into handy tray for sorting the seeds and stems out of your weed. Kids these days…
These days?
1. The last music package that could double as a de-seeding device was the gatefold LP—which has been more or less dead for twenty years.
2. The last time weed that required de-seeding (i.e., not sinsemilla) was widely smoked in America was also about twenty years ago, if not longer. From what I hear.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Matt, what did you do to JimboSlice to give him such a raging, permanent hardon for you? It’s very sweet.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
ah the dmca. that brings me back! anyway, what you are missing is that this has always been about controlling the distribution channels. if anybody can market their music without the warner group, then what’s the point of the warner group?
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“Matthew Yglesias is supported by subsidies from a non-profit politically oriented foundation. Ta-Nehisi Coates is a loss leader for a glossy magazine which is gradually following those losses straight into the ground. Neither Yglesias nor Coates is in a position to say anything about what constitutes a sustainable revenue model in the internet-age media.”
Of course, Yglesias’ trust-fund was cobbled together by someone making intellectual property. And so, in his Oedipal way, he thinks he must bash intellectual property.
Bashing the ability of artists to earn a living is to Yglesias as fucking up Iraq was to George W. Bush. If Daddy has a constructive accomplishment, the trust-fund son must try to fuck it up.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“Matt, what did you do to JimboSlice to give him such a raging, permanent hardon for you? It’s very sweet.”
I don’t read the comments here enough to know if JimboSlice is sane or crazy as a general rule.
But his comment in this particular thread is 100% correct.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
By the way, folks might like the new non-commercial audio stream from WFUV in New York:
They’ve been playing a group from the Bay area (I think) called The High Decibels, who’s song “Miss Cindy” really rocks, Beastie Boys fashion.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Links hard.
Pretend you can see
http://thealternateside.org
above.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I don’t believe you when you say you don’t read these comments much. You’re in the same boat as Jimbo. Very sweet man-crush. People not romantically infatuated generally don’t stalk bloggers for months, crying out for attention under the guise of permanent (and vociferous) disapproval. Don’t mind me though, I’m just a sucker for internet romance.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“I don’t believe you when you say you don’t read these comments much.”
In a average week, I’ll wade into the comments about once.
I don’t recognize most of the screennames here anymore, which is why I prefaced my agreement with JimboSlice’s comment here with the note that I have no idea if he’s a crank or a sage.
“Don’t mind me though, I’m just a sucker for internet romance.”
Which we can tell by the way your attention was grabbed by JimboSlice’s attitudinal opposition to Matthew, rather than by the actual point he was making on the topic, which was a good one.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I’m not sure about the point JimboSlice was trying to make, but his comment did remind me of one thing: AC/DC kicks the living shit out of any of the bands that this blog has recommended.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“AC/DC kicks the living shit out of any of the bands that this blog has recommended.”
AC/DC is an awful band. But they’re a world-class awful band.
They’re similar to Aerosmith in that sense. What they’re doing isn’t particularly good, but they somehow make it work in a wobbly kind of way.
And until I see proof to the contrary, I continue to consider all Australians mentally retarded.
—–
If you’re in the mood for heavy, why not go all the way?
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
The point that I was trying to make is that for a lot of bands the YouTube issue is that they are having their content stolen. They have reached a certain point where they no longer need promotion to make people aware of them.
Also it is up to the rights holder to decide how they want to be promoted. I am sure if the Atlantic decided it wanted to be nice and promote Lord Yglesias by posting all his blog posts for free his mind would change pretty fast!
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I just wish Metric had more songs as good as Soft Rock Star.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
That is why it is important to oppose Warner Music, Sony Music, Universal Music, EMI and the RIAA. None of these companies treat artists fairly unless they are in the top ten acts at any given time. Most artists get completely fucked by companies like Warner Music, and supporting Warner is equivalent to fucking the artist.
Support local music, support independent music, and do everything possible to kill off the likes of Warner if you really value music and the people that create it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
It does make you wonder what Warner is really thinking.
But on the other hand, too many people tend to confuse prudential advice with moral advice. The claim — even if it’s true — that record companies are foolish vigorously to defend IP rights online is not the same as, and does not imply, either that they are morally wrong to do so or that I’m morally right to download at will.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 am
These days?
1. The last music package that could double as a de-seeding device was the gatefold LP—which has been more or less dead for twenty years.
2. The last time weed that required de-seeding (i.e., not sinsemilla) was widely smoked in America was also about twenty years ago, if not longer. From what I hear.
1. Yeah, I know. Sitting here whacked out on some good smack, the image of seeds rolling off a little 5″x5″ hard plastic surface and ending up all over the place seemed kind funny. But maybe I’m the only one shooting junk this evening.
2. Yeah, you don’t want to be finding seeds in a $100 quarter bag of kind bud — but if you do find one, you always squirrel it away. A heritage seed collection, with good genetics, maybe a useful thing some day, after ADM gets done blowing GMOs all over the place. (If the weed is knee-high by the Fourth of July…)
But bags of Mexican schwag — $20 around here, the kids tell me — tend to be pretty seedy. And the schwag is widely smoked still. Around here anyway. Or so I hear.
And as long as we’re all getting up to date on current drug culture, I’m not sure “sinsemilla”, whatever that is or was, is still in wide circulation. What I hear about is stuff like Blueberries, Northern Lights and TWA (Train Wreck Afghanistan).
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
If you’re in the mood for heavy, why not go all the way?
The Stooges?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 am
My god.
I don’t think you could possibly be any more of a poseur.
Stop it please.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
So apparently because labels can put up music videos on their own YouTube channels that can get them paid by allowing ads to be shown over part of the beginning of the video and you can’t download YouTube videos easily to your iPod, Warner has made a smart decision to cut down on cheap or free marketing?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
I love how Petey and Jimbo keep up the “Lord Yglesias” thing, even as they’re saying that everyone should have to pay money whenever they want to hear music. Yglesias, you elitist-populist aristocrat-communist you!
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 am
“Then, suddenly, not so much.”
Jerry may have slacked off at the end. But he still makes more money dead than most of us will ever make alive. And he was a leader of a band for more than 30 years. Aside from Nusrat Fetah Ali Kahn, I cannot think of a man who has been recorded more. Maybe John Lennon beats Jerry. But nobody beats Nusrat. Not even Elvis.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Jimbo – Your point is self-refuting. A band that no longer needs promotion no longer needs Warner Music. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have shown how a band with an already built fan-base can capitalize by cutting out the middle men. You can unpack the implications for major labels when free promotion and distribution is available to all musicians.
Warner can do whatever it wants with the music it owns, but the business model they are fighting for is already dead. I don’t see how this isn’t a good thing. I cannot think of anyone actually thinking Major Record Labels were doing anything positive for music, artists, or listeners. Artists and record companies can refuse to write music or distribute albums until they get paid but its not going to prevent the next band to be performing for a portion of liquor sales next door and handing out free CD’s at the door that they recorded and then burned on their computer in their basement. The result is less AC/DC style homogenized monoculture and more choice, more niche bands like Metric whose ceiling for success might be lower but whose price of entry is certainly cheaper. Less million dollar advertisements and more home-made promos available for free on youtube. And I see that as progress – I mean, did anyone actually think the distribution model that Major Labels, Clear Channel, and Viacom set up was the most efficient, consumer friendly, and beneficial to the majority of artists?
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
The cycle won’t be complete until the record industry demands a bailout package.
In the meantime, though, more talented up-and-coming artists will realize that signing onto a major label will not only stifle their creativity – that’s an awfully old cliche – but it will also deprive them of access to the cheap, efficient, and very fast internet marketing tools that could build their fanbase. This is potentially good news for the consumer: the interesting stuff will be out there flaunting itself for free, while the mediocre brand-name stuff will be marked down at Wal-Mart as the sales continue to plummet. And if dwindling recording budgets drive down sound quality…well, you won’t hear the difference in your ear buds.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 am
“If you’re in the mood for heavy, why not go all the way? The Stooges?”
Good point.
—–
“I love how Petey … even as they’re saying that everyone should have to pay money whenever they want to hear music.”
I’m in favor of artists getting paid for their work. I support the ability of future artists to get rich just like Matt’s daddy did.
I have far less concern about your “right” to not have to pay money for your entertainment. (And FWIW, there are places you can hear music without paying money that somehow manage to compensate the rights holders…)
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 am
Yeah, the “rights holders”, Petey – not the artists you claim you’re in favor of getting paid.
I’d call for better trolls, but you’re already the best one Matt has.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
For what it’s worth, I liked the song and purchased it plus two others off that album on iTunes. Good stuff. And to think that somehow I bought Emily Haines’ solo album before I even heard of Metric.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
I’m in favor of artists getting paid for their work.
Then you shouldn’t be supporting Warner Music, heh.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Actually, Petey, I make a point of never downloading music illegally. But where does one go to watch music videos without paying for them? MTV and VH1 are up to other things now. Besides, like fostert, I don’t buy music that I haven’t heard already. With music radio and TV a sick joke these days, that leaves YouTube. So if Warner bands won’t be up there, I guess I won’t be checking them out.
Warner is making the crucial business mistake of caring about what seems fair, rather than what will make them the most money. People like Petey will always be around to talk about how people should be paying for this stuff, but that’s completely irrelevant in the world of business.
January 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You’re wrong that a video is just an ad for a song.
Both the video and the audio versions of the song are technologically equivalent products (digital files) to a consumer who no longer buys music on CDs. The video and the song are both just content. Just files.
The music industry is actually ahead of you, Matthew, in recognizing that they need to be able to sell the right to view *anything* they own, in whatever format and whatever medium, or they’re dead. If you think that selling CDs is a what record companies should be thinking about, you’re the old-fashioned one.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Great post, thanks for the info… last part makes the most sense though
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
We really liked your blog and this info on the ad-supported model…we believe in it enough to have just pushed out BETA 2 of our site!
Sincerely,
The Songnumbers Team
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Thanks for pushing out more ad-supported music information to the World!
Sincerely,
The Songnumbers Team
(PS, we just launched BETA 2 of our site!)
April 12th, 2009 at 6:32 am
lil wayne is sooooo hott